JasonOfOrillia:Wasn't there dramatic oversupply of shipping capacity 4 years ago? And now Maersk is getting more ships?

Maersk cant really lose. Sure, global economies ebb and flow, but demand continues to rise overall, if for no other reason than because the world population continues to grow. This is all natural, and Maersk has been in the game long enough to know this.

JasonOfOrillia:Wasn't there dramatic oversupply of shipping capacity 4 years ago? And now Maersk is getting more ships?

Oversupply in the sense of a shiatload of smaller ships or shiatty cargo freighters made from conversion jobs done to tankers. Those are being broken up and the arms race to develop purpose built container ships is continuing.

Also as others have said, Maersk has a hard time losing on this. Maybe the China to Europe route will fall, but there has always been a shiatload of stuff moving across the Pacific and Maersk can get in on that.

ha-ha-guy:JasonOfOrillia: Wasn't there dramatic oversupply of shipping capacity 4 years ago? And now Maersk is getting more ships?

Oversupply in the sense of a shiatload of smaller ships or shiatty cargo freighters made from conversion jobs done to tankers. Those are being broken up and the arms race to develop purpose built container ships is continuing.

Also as others have said, Maersk has a hard time losing on this. Maybe the China to Europe route will fall, but there has always been a shiatload of stuff moving across the Pacific and Maersk can get in on that.

Plus, when the ice-caps melt, those ships will make really good floating cities!

JasonOfOrillia:Wasn't there dramatic oversupply of shipping capacity 4 years ago? And now Maersk is getting more ships?

In 2008 the bottom fell out of the shipping market, and a lot of ships got scrapped. In 2011 Maresk made record profits as the ships rebounded. Part of the change was a recovery in demand, but part of the change was also a move towards "slow steaming." The "Triple E" class ships referenced in this article have a design speed of 16 knots, whereas the "E" class ships that were the previous size queens of the Maresk line were designed to cruse at 25 knows.

Slowing down dramatically reduces the cost of fuel per ton shipped, but also reduces the amount of trips a ship can make in a year creating an effective reduction in effective annual capacity.

JasonOfOrillia:Wasn't there dramatic oversupply of shipping capacity 4 years ago? And now Maersk is getting more ships?

It's the marine circle of life. A bigger, albeit slower, ship is more fuel efficient, as long as it has a terminus at either end big enough to load and off-load efficiently (as in "pull up the mile-long train beside the dock and crane RFID-equipped containers onto freight cars directly".

The result is that yesterday's 800-1000 footers are made redundant, and are cut to bits on Indian beaches to make tomorrow's Tatas.

How big is too big? There is no way that something that size would fit through the Panama Canal, so it would have to go around South America. Wouldn't the added time and distance hurt their bottom line?

Whatthefark:How big is too big? There is no way that something that size would fit through the Panama Canal, so it would have to go around South America. Wouldn't the added time and distance hurt their bottom line?

I read they are currently widening the canal to fit them. I also just read they just got approval to raise the Bayonne bridge some 65 feet to let these beasts into Port Elizabeth in Jersey.

AlwaysRightBoy:Whatthefark: How big is too big? There is no way that something that size would fit through the Panama Canal, so it would have to go around South America. Wouldn't the added time and distance hurt their bottom line?

I read they are currently widening the canal to fit them. I also just read they just got approval to raise the Bayonne bridge some 65 feet to let these beasts into Port Elizabeth in Jersey.

You also don't buy ships like these to go from the east coast of the Americas to the west coast of the same (or vice versa). These are for crossing oceans (Asia-America, Europe-America, Asia-Europe, etc.).

Whatthefark:How big is too big? There is no way that something that size would fit through the Panama Canal, so it would have to go around South America. Wouldn't the added time and distance hurt their bottom line?

The Suez Canal can also accommodate larger vessels. Maersk recently also announced they weren't going to use the Panama Canal anyway (though we'll see if that's just positioning for rate negotiations...the canal hasn't announced what it's rates are going to be for the larger canal).

Name_Omitted:In 2008 the bottom fell out of the shipping market, and a lot of ships got scrapped. In 2011 Maresk made record profits as the ships rebounded. Part of the change was a recovery in demand, but part of the change was also a move towards "slow steaming." The "Triple E" class ships referenced in this article have a design speed of 16 knots, whereas the "E" class ships that were the previous size queens of the Maresk line were designed to cruse at 25 knows.

Slowing down dramatically reduces the cost of fuel per ton shipped, but also reduces the amount of trips a ship can make in a year creating an effective reduction in effective annual capacity.

Can you start writing for the BBC? This comment is longer than the article.

Whatthefark:How big is too big? There is no way that something that size would fit through the Panama Canal, so it would have to go around South America. Wouldn't the added time and distance hurt their bottom line?

I was working for a shipyard in Germany back in the mid to late 80s and the boats we built for APL were the first generation of "Post-Panamax" containerships (too big for the canal). Those had a capacity of about 4300 TEU. Today's big boys have a capacity of 18000 TEU. Yep, they're a bit too big :-)

Buck Henderson:Name_Omitted: In 2008 the bottom fell out of the shipping market, and a lot of ships got scrapped. In 2011 Maresk made record profits as the ships rebounded. Part of the change was a recovery in demand, but part of the change was also a move towards "slow steaming." The "Triple E" class ships referenced in this article have a design speed of 16 knots, whereas the "E" class ships that were the previous size queens of the Maresk line were designed to cruse at 25 knows.

Slowing down dramatically reduces the cost of fuel per ton shipped, but also reduces the amount of trips a ship can make in a year creating an effective reduction in effective annual capacity.

Can you start writing for the BBC? This comment is longer than the article.

Actually, if the BBC was to insert the required extra vowels, his entry would probably require two pages.

akula:AlwaysRightBoy: Whatthefark: How big is too big? There is no way that something that size would fit through the Panama Canal, so it would have to go around South America. Wouldn't the added time and distance hurt their bottom line?

I read they are currently widening the canal to fit them. I also just read they just got approval to raise the Bayonne bridge some 65 feet to let these beasts into Port Elizabeth in Jersey.

You also don't buy ships like these to go from the east coast of the Americas to the west coast of the same (or vice versa). These are for crossing oceans (Asia-America, Europe-America, Asia-Europe, etc.).

Only Asia-Europe via Suez. According to TFA, no port in the Americas can handle this class.

ha-ha-guy:JasonOfOrillia: Wasn't there dramatic oversupply of shipping capacity 4 years ago? And now Maersk is getting more ships?

Oversupply in the sense of a shiatload of smaller ships or shiatty cargo freighters made from conversion jobs done to tankers. Those are being broken up and the arms race to develop purpose built container ships is continuing.

Also as others have said, Maersk has a hard time losing on this. Maybe the China to Europe route will fall, but there has always been a shiatload of stuff moving across the Pacific and Maersk can get in on that.

Except that there is no port in America that can handle a ship of that size. Never mind docking it (which is a challenge unto itself). There's no port where you could offload the thing and get it onto rail in a short enough time to make it worthwhile. Our rail system is overloaded now, and every major port is also a major traffic congestion center, rendering trucking non-feasable as well.

Think of putting a ball park at the end of a country road. Yes, you could build it to seat 100,000. But if you can only get 2000 cars an hour off the highway and down that road, the traffic to get into the stadium would mean that fans would be stuck in traffic longer than they would be spending watching the game.

Evil Twin Skippy:Except that there is no port in America that can handle a ship of that size. Never mind docking it (which is a challenge unto itself). There's no port where you could offload the thing and get it onto rail in a short enough time to make it worthwhile. Our rail system is overloaded now, and every major port is also a major traffic congestion center, rendering trucking non-feasable as well.

Sort of. They're actually a similar size as nimitz class aircraft carriers, if we want to get technical.

Alonjar:Evil Twin Skippy: Except that there is no port in America that can handle a ship of that size. Never mind docking it (which is a challenge unto itself). There's no port where you could offload the thing and get it onto rail in a short enough time to make it worthwhile. Our rail system is overloaded now, and every major port is also a major traffic congestion center, rendering trucking non-feasable as well.

Sort of. They're actually a similar size as nimitz class aircraft carriers, if we want to get technical.

The Triple E's are longer, wider and heavier than a Nimitz class carrier. By quite a bit, actually.

At some point, doesn't it make more sense to use wind to supplement or replace (most) oil, either through modern solutions like SkySails or through good old-fashioned sails? There must be some significant disadvantages for vessels this large.

If I were in ship design, I would be drawing up plans and making prototypes of wind powered containerships. At some point, we'll be going right back to sailing - and that point is quickly coming into view.

Evil Twin Skippy:ha-ha-guy: JasonOfOrillia: Wasn't there dramatic oversupply of shipping capacity 4 years ago? And now Maersk is getting more ships?

Oversupply in the sense of a shiatload of smaller ships or shiatty cargo freighters made from conversion jobs done to tankers. Those are being broken up and the arms race to develop purpose built container ships is continuing.

Also as others have said, Maersk has a hard time losing on this. Maybe the China to Europe route will fall, but there has always been a shiatload of stuff moving across the Pacific and Maersk can get in on that.

Except that there is no port in America that can handle a ship of that size. Never mind docking it (which is a challenge unto itself). There's no port where you could offload the thing and get it onto rail in a short enough time to make it worthwhile. Our rail system is overloaded now, and every major port is also a major traffic congestion center, rendering trucking non-feasable as well.

Think of putting a ball park at the end of a country road. Yes, you could build it to seat 100,000. But if you can only get 2000 cars an hour off the highway and down that road, the traffic to get into the stadium would mean that fans would be stuck in traffic longer than they would be spending watching the game.

Well if America has no ports that can handle it, how many ports are there worldwide that can? Are we that far behind on infrastructure investment, or are these ships that far ahead of industrialized nations capability to offload freaking gigantic ships?

There are a dozen ports in Europe and Asia that can handle these boats with a road and rail infrastructure behind it to handle the volume.Unfortunately, we prefer spending our money on joint strike fighters and littoral combat ships, so we don't get to play with those big toys. But hey, as long as we keep telling ourselves that we're #1, it's all good, right?

adamatari:At some point, doesn't it make more sense to use wind to supplement or replace (most) oil, either through modern solutions like SkySails or through good old-fashioned sails? There must be some significant disadvantages for vessels this large.

If I were in ship design, I would be drawing up plans and making prototypes of wind powered containerships. At some point, we'll be going right back to sailing - and that point is quickly coming into view.

Sailing is great in the open water but in crowded waterways with each ship carrying billions of dollars of goods wind power doesn't give the ship enough control.

SurelyShirley:There are a dozen ports in Europe and Asia that can handle these boats with a road and rail infrastructure behind it to handle the volume.Unfortunately, we prefer spending our money on joint strike fighters and littoral combat ships, so we don't get to play with those big toys. But hey, as long as we keep telling ourselves that we're #1, it's all good, right?

If you actually pay attention to the BBC, the only thing the American ports lack are the cranes to unload. I'm sure Long Beach will be broken by the need to get a new crane.

/as for the rail network comment from Skippy, if the big ship replaces two smaller freighters, that is still the same amount of cargo containers going onto railcars